Examining the Status of Good Urban Governance Indicators in Arak City

جغرافیاوتوسعه ناحیه ای

Article 12, Volume 16, Issue 1 - Serial Number 30, September 2018, Pages 309-335   

Document Type: scientific-research article

DOI: 10.22067/geography.v16i1.74544

Authors

Soheila Askarizadeh Ardestani^* ; Asghar Zarabi; Masood Taghvaei

University of Isfahan

Abstract

Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The increasing intensification of scale, expansion, and complexity of problems in cities as well as becoming aware of the incompetent conventional system and top-down decisions-making have led to a trend toward systems, in which small and large decisions are made through cooperation between urban beneficiaries. Today, the “good urban governance” approach has been introduced as the most influential and sustainable way of management with the lowest cost. Given the significance of this approach, its examination and analysis in the management of various cities is substantially beneficial. Consequently, the purpose is to examine good urban governance in Arak city as a case study.
2. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework of the study is based on good urban governance. A prominent feature of democratic governments is good governance which cannot be realized without democracy. Today, indicators such as responsiveness, efficiency, accountability, achieving public satisfaction, quality of life, and gaining information on good governance are emphasized. Good governance results in a growing trust between citizens and governments, and ultimately public satisfaction. The indicators of good urban governance include: effectiveness, participation, transparency, lawfulness, accountability, equity, strategic insight, agreed orientation, reception, responsiveness, access to information, etc. In this study, 6 indicators were confirmed, based on which the present study was conducted. These indicators include participation, effectiveness and efficiency, lawfulness, access to information, equity, and political stability and fight against corruption.
3. Methodology
The present inquiry is a descriptive-analytical study with an applied purpose. The total population of the study includes the residents of Arak city in its five urban regions who are more than 571068 people. Given the high volume of the population as well as numerous limitations such as time, location, and costs for questionnaire distribution and completion, a sample population was indicated using Cochran’s formula; in this regard, the sample population was calculated as 384 people. The main instrument used in the study was self-constructed questionnaire; questioning was done across the citizens of Arak. Ultimately, the collected data were processed and analyzed using SPSS and AMOS softwares.
4. Results and Discussion
The results showed that the six indicators of good urban governance in Arak city are at unfavorable state. Among the indicators of Arak city governance, the ones including effectiveness and efficiency are of the best status with an average of 2.36, compared to other indicators. Furthermore, indicators including participation and access to information were different in various regions. Accordingly, the results of Tukey’s test showed that region 1 with average ratings of 1.85 and 1.66 on the indicators of participation and access to information, respectively, is different from other regions; these ratings are very poor while the status of other regions are at a somewhat better state.
The extent of correlation among the six-fold indicators of good urban governance including participation, efficiency and effectiveness, political stability and fight against corruption, lawfulness, and social equity with ultimate satisfaction is 0.691, which is regarded as a direct and relatively intense correlation. Nevertheless, the six-fold indicators examined in Arak city overall are capable of explaining 47% of variance in the indicator of satisfaction toward good urban governance while almost 53% of changes in this indicator are explained through alternative factors.
Furthermore, the results of structural equations modeling based on factor loadings, regression weight, and different fitness indices demonstrated the fact that the indicators of good urban governance in Arak city are at unfavorable state which can be confirmed by the compiled model.
As a result, the indicators of governance are overlooked within the management of Arak city; while the six examined indicators are not even at an average state according to the residents’ view, they are in fact below average and involve poor or very poor status. Moreover, an examination of the regions’ situations in terms of having these indicators did not show a significant difference between regions except for participation and access to information; region 1 in Arak city is at a very weak state regarding said indicators, compared to the other four regions. However, this does not mean that other regions are of favorable status in this context, except that they are only insignificantly better compared to region 1. Considering the status quo, it appears that the lack of emphasis on applying these indicators could definitely bring about irreversible damages to Arak city management.
5. Conclusion and Suggestions
Given the findings of the study, Arak city is at an unfavorable state in terms of good urban governance indicators. Not only the continuation of this process could lead to various issues in the context of community participation and various interactions aimed at urban development, diverse urban plans are incapable of offering a standard, sustainable situation. Subsequently, the application of governance indicators with significant emphasis should be included in Arak city planning by managers and administrators.
 

Keywords

Good urban governance; Arak city

References

1. ابراهیم زاده، ع. و اسدیان، م. (1392). تحلیل و ارزیابی میزان تحقق‌پذیری حکمروایی خوب شهری در ایران: موردشناسی، شهر کاشمر. نشریة جغرافیا و آمایش شهری-منطقه‌ای، 6 (2)، 30-17.

2. اجزاء شکوهی، م.، رهنما، م. ر. و گوهری قاسم‌پور، ن. (1393). مطالعة تطبیقی شاخص‌های حکمروایی خوب شهری در کلان شهرهای ایران. مجموعه مقالات ششمین همایش ملی برنامه ریزی و مدیریت شهری، 21 تا 22 آبان (صص. 14-1). مشهد: دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد.

3. باغگلی، م. (1394). تحلیل وضعیت حکمروایی خوب شهری در مناطق دو و چهار شهر کرمان. (پایان‌نامة منتشرشدة کارشناسی ارشد جغرافیا)، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ایران.

4. برک پور، ن. و اسدی، ا. (1388). مدیریت و حکمرانی شهری. تهران: دانشگاه هنر.

5. تقوایی، ع. ا. و تاجدار، ر. (1388). درآمدی بر حکمروایی خوب شهری در رویکردی تحلیلی. مجلة مدیریت شهری، 23 (1)، 58-45.

6. حیدری، م. ر. (1392). سنجش عملکرد مدیریت شهری با تاکید بر شاخص‌های حکمروایی خوب شهری (نمونة موردی: شهر یزد). (پایان‌نامة منتشرشدة کارشناسی ارشد جغرافیا)، دانشگاه یزد، ایران.

7. رهنما، م. ر،. مافی، ع. و اسدی، ر.(1389). تحلیل جایگاه حکمروایی خوب شهری در مشهد با الگوی SWOT. مجلة جغرافیا و توسعة ناحیه‌ای، 15، 224-197.

8. رهنمایی، م.ت. و کشاورز، م. (1389). بررسی الگوی حکمروایی خوب و نقش دولت در مدیریت و ادارة امور شهرها در ایران. مجلة جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی منطقه‌ای، 1 (1)، 55-23.

9. سردارنیا، خ. (1388). اثر سرمایة اجتماعی بر حکمرانی خوب. مجلة سیاسی-اقتصادی، 260-259، 145-132.

10. قاسمی کفرودی، س. (1392). بررسی توسعة محله‌های شهری با تأکید بر الگوی حکمروایی خوب شهری (نمونة مورد مطالعه: منطقة 19 شهرداری تهران). (پایان‌نامة منتشرنشدة کارشناسی جغرافیا)، دانشگاه تربیت معلم تهران، ایران.

11. کاظمیان، غ. ر. (1386). درآمدی بر الگوی حکمرانی شهری. فصل‌نامة جستارهای شهرسازی، 19، 7-5.

12. لاله‌پور، م. (1386). حکمرانی شهری و مدیریت شهری در کشورهای درحال توسعه. فصل‌نامة جستارهای شهرسازی، 19، 71-60.

13. مبارک، ا. و آذرپیوند، ز. (1388). نگاهی به شاخص‌های حکمرانی خوب از منظر اسلام و تأثیر آن بر رشد اقتصادی. فصل‌نامة اقتصاد اسلامی، 36، 208-197.

14. مرکز آمار ایران. (1395). سرشماری نفوس و مسکن، 1395، تهران.

15. ملک حسینی، ع. و کولائی، پ. (1395). بررسی حکمروایی خوب شهری، مجموعه مقالات دومین کنگرة بین‌المللی علوم زمین و توسعة شهری، 23 اردیبهشت، (صص. 15-1). تبریز: نشر کیان طرح دانش.

16. میری، ع. (1377). حکمرانی خوب، سنگ بنای توسعه. تهران: مرکز پژوهش‌های مجلس.

17. یغفوری، ح.، اسکندری ثانی، م. و ارشد، ح. (1395). تحلیل جایگاه حکمروایی شایستة شهری و برنامه‌ریزی راهبردی آن (مطالعة موردی: شهر بیرجند). مجلة پژوهش‌های جغرافیا و برنامه ریزی شهری، 4 (3)، 429-411.

18. Banovetz, J. B. (2005). Managing the modern city. Chicago, Ill: Intl City County Management Assn.

19. Gani, A., & Duncan, R. (2007). Measuring good governance using time series data: Fiji Islands. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 12(3), 367-385.

20. Kadago, J., Sandholz, S., & Hamhaber, J. (2010, September). Good urban governance, actor’s relations and paradigms: Lessons from Nairobi, Kenya, and Recife, Brazil. Paper presented at the 46th ISOCARP Congress, Nairobi, Kenya.

21. Kaufmann, D., Leautier, F., & Mastruzzi, M. (2004). Governance and the city: An empirical exploration into global determinants of urban performance. Retrieved from https:// openknowledge. worldbank. org/ bitstream/ handle/ 10986/ 8285/ wps3712.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

22. Morgan, T. M. (2003). Environmental health. Toronto, Canada: Wadsworth.

23. Roberts, S. M., Wright, S., & O’Neill, P. (2007). Good governance in the Pacific? Ambivalence and possibility. Geoforum, 38(5), 967-984.

24. Sadashiva, M. (2008). Effects of civil society on urban planning and governance in Meysore. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Technical University of Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany.

25. Sheng, Y. K. (2010). Good urban governance in Southeast Asia. Journal of Environment and Urbanization ASIA, 1(2), 131–147.

26. Stewart, K. (2006). Designing good urban governance indicators: the importance of citizen participation and its evaluation in Greater Vancouver. Journal of Cities, 23(3), 196-204.

27. Uddin, M. J., & Joya, L. (2007). Development through good governance: Lessons for developing countries. Journal of Asian Affairs, 29(3), 1-28.

28. Yousaf, M., Ihsan, F., & Ellahi, A. (2016). Exploring the impact of good governance on citizens' trust in Pakistan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 200-209.